The much-awaited draft Revised Master Plan–2031 for Bengaluru has rightly conducted studies across disciplines to arrive at various proposals, and two positive aspects stand out. Conservation (of natural networks) and preservation (of heritage buildings and precincts) have clear delineations in place for the rapidly growing city. Proposals for the ‘future’ of the city’s growth, however, require far more deliberation and detail.
Transit-oriented development has been highly recommended by several national and international policies to enable walkable, dense, sustainable communities at 500 m to 800 m around mass transit stations. This has been rejected in Zone A (areas within the Outer Ring Road) of the city which contains more than 50% of the current expensive metro rail network, largely citing traffic congestion challenges.
This chosen “differential strategy” scenario has no real commitment to mass public transport access and will only encourage peripheral automobile-oriented growth as the highest development rights (floor-area ratio) are being allotted to the city’s peripheries.
The strategy to bring down FAR to less than what is already consumed in the core city will discourage redevelopment. An undesirable “doughnut” effect is being encouraged where the city centre will empty out (29 wards already have declining population growth rates) and the peripheries will become more dense.
Zonal regulations, which for the first time incentivises redevelopment, have minimal details such as additional incentive built-up area, and do not consider equity aspects for project-affected people (PAPs). In Mumbai’s regulations, for example, a majority of the PAPs will need to give project consent (in slum, low-income housing and industrial area redevelopment), and obtain assurances to be rehoused.
Further, lakes are being counted as part of the mandated open space requirement (10% to 15%) that needs to be provided within layouts, which is undesirable. This can result in several layouts without any open spaces, although natural buffer zones being counted for the same is reasonable.
The Peripheral Ring Road project has been languishing for over a decade already. Implementing environmentally sensitive no-development buffers will be an uphill task as it covers 10% of the city’s developable area. No specific mechanism has been stated for the same, including how landowners who have lost their opportunity to develop these lands will be compensated. Good examples exist in Maharashtra and Gujarat as they have a legacy of implementing detailed ‘land readjustment schemes’ at the local level to attain land reserved for public purposes.
Wide deliberation and credibility for the plan could have been strongly built if ward-level plans had been initiated at the start of the process. This would have reflected people’s knowledge, aspirations and local concerns and needs, which could have then been aggregated into the city’s master plan.
One hopes the master plan will further detail out ward-level planning as part of its implementation strategy. Bangalore Development Authority, which prepared the draft master plan, must also initiate a platform for a series of negotiations with other infrastructure implementing agencies. Only then can projects such as those of mass transit become part of a prioritised projects pipeline of other agencies and not remain merely academic. Meanwhile, the court’s decision on the plan’s finalisation, and the status of the Metropolitan Planning Committee are awaited.
(The author is Head of Urban Development, World Resources Institute, India)
